The Virginian

Monday, November 30, 2009

By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication. My area of research happens to be the climate of the past millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research 'soldiers'....

I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.

These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the 'pleasure' to experience all this in my area of research.

All the global warming hoaxers will tell it that they did it to save mankind.

There's a Czar for that!

Killing Grandma and Grandpa to save money.

Why is ClimateGate Important?

Primarily because the people involved make up the core of the scientific thrust behind the political movement to reduce carbon dioxide. If that core is compromised, the entire scientific foundation for the climate change (nee "global warming") movement collapses.

The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.

What are they accused of doing?

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

Why is this a problem?

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.

In other words, they "adjusted" the data until if gave them the result they wanted. and then they sold it to the UN who wanted to tax developed countries for the benefit of the kleptocracies that make up the majority of its membership. and it gave the socialists in the developed world an excuse to gain more control of their country's economies.

From the American MSM? With the exception of FOX, the key players are defending the status quo. The NY Times lead reporter on climate change, Andrew Revkin (mentioned in the leaked e-mails) concludes his defense of the climate change hoaxers this way:

Dr. Curry and others said that if nothing else, the e-mail correspondence suggested that climate scientists needed to show more temperance in dealing with their critics.

“We won the war — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, and climate and energy legislation is near the top of the U.S. agenda,” Dr. Curry said. “Why keep fighting all these silly battles and putting ourselves in this position?"

For Revkin and the global warming alarmists, the battle is over, they have won and now it's just a matter of sweeping up and putting the "deniers" in their place.

Deb Saunders writes for Townhall.com and the San Francisco Chronicle. Neither fish nor fowl nor good red meat, Deb reflects the Republicanism that lost the 2008 election. You can tell how her column on Palin’s book, “Going Rogue,” is going to turn out by her opening paragraph, referring to Sarah Palin as having been

“...plucked from her Little House on the Tundra to serve as John McCain's running mate and turned into a national caricature.”

Actually Deb, she was occupying the Governor's chair in Alaska. But I guess that viewed from San Francisco you can't tell the difference.

Even her positive comments mock Palin. Unlike the kind of people who dominate national politics in both Democrat and Republican circles, for the most part born to wealth, Palin grew up in a family whose father was a schoolteacher who did not have the means to send his children to college, much less the “Grand Tour” of Europe. This is how Saunders deals with that:

Palin never addresses the frequent criticism thrown her way by journalists who wondered if Palin possessed any intellectual curiosity -- in light of her failure to get a passport until 2007. If she failed to roam the Tuscan hills in her junior year abroad, at least thanks to her teacher father, Sarah Heath grew up majoring in the exotic natural world around her. She knew all about the state bird (ptarmigans), the difference between glacial crevices and crevasses, as well as what differentiates the grizzly from the brown bear. Dang.

Get that? She knew about her state’s birds, animals and the nature around her. Dang (what a rube)! The billionaires that live in the San Francisco hills have roamed the Tuscan hills and that is why both the city and the state are bankrupt.

While I appreciate Palin sharing the perspective, it would be nice if she had taken on many of the perceptions some voters have developed of her. There's no question that many in the media treated Palin -- and her family -- poorly.

Treated Palin poorly? Yes, and Hitler treated the Jews poorly and Stalin treated the Kulaks poorly. Perhaps it would have been different if the Jews and the Kulaks had made their case a little bit better.

That said, Palin herself blew the Katie Couric interview, and not just because she appeared impatient.

We’ll never know how badly Palin “blew” the Couric interview until we see the outtakes. We do know that the snippets they broadcast did not put Palin in a favorable light. On the other hand, Saunders is not doing a particularly good job in this essay. You could say she’s blowing it.

Palin herself quit her job as Alaska governor, despite her obligation to state voters.

Yeah, she just walked off the job because she got tired of it. No mention of the dozens of frivolous ethics complaints that were launched by her political enemies which she had to spend her own money to defend, and which was taking up most of her staff’s time. Sorry Deb, you’re totally uninformed on this one. Blowing it again.

Palin herself seems happy to parade herself as the far right's favorite victim, when a serious politician would be out trying to woo skeptics.

Get that? Palin is “parading herself as the far right’s favorite victim!” That’s what San Fran Deb thinks of Palin’s supporters. The ones who came out in the tens of thousands to see her when John McCain could not fill a living room. She’s not a “serious politician.” She’s not wooing skeptics. No, all she’s doing is connecting with the people of the country who don’t live in San Francisco but live in places like Grand Rapids and who stand in line for a day in the freezing cold to get her to autograph her book. But then, she never did take the advice of the “smart set” but still managed to be elected mayor and governor despite opposition from both parties. It looks like she’ll have to do without Deb Saunders’ vote.

In fact, that might be the winning strategy. “Vote for Sarah Palin: "San Fran Deb" Saunders doesn’t like her.”

House of Cards

A Distillation of Palin Hatred

I was fortunate enough to find about 150 people - who read the NY Times - and who believe that Sarah Palin is the Anti-Christ ... or who would use that term is they were Christians. As a fall back they compare her to Hitler, claim that she encouraged her fans to kill Obama, and is afraid of what Levi Johnston could reveal about her. And those are the compliments.

Why the MSM Cannot Possibly Report on ClimateGate

The AGW/Climate Change question became a rigorous boondoggle that got out of control not because the scientist who first suggested a connection between human carbon emission and a change in climate were bad people, or that the question was not worth asking, but because bad people then took the uncertain hypothesis, put it on media-fueled steroids, demonized anyone who disagreed with them, made it political -so much so that even the scientists got caught up in the good/bad, smart/stupid, Gore/Bush, Left/Right identifiers- and found real power there; they allowed the AGW movement to become the dubious centering pole upholding the giant circus tent of their worldviews.

As such, it is not permitted to be shaken. Shake the centering pole, and everything could come tumbling down: Oh. My. Gawd! If the Gore-doubters were right about this, what else might they be right about? And if they’re all stupid, and I’m smart, but they’re right and I’m wrong . . .

Implosion.

If the true-believers of AGW got this wrong, and they’d attached it to all of their politics, all of their hate, all of their superiority, then everything is in a free-fall.

And this is why the mainstream media cannot possibly report on Climategate until they have an acceptable counter-narrative that they can haul out in order to either debunk the story or soften its edges, even as they break the news.

The press, who spent a huge portion of their credibility convincing America that President Bush was a “liar” and a “power-abuser” and an “arrogant chump who made the world (read Chirac and Schroeder) hate us” and then spent the balance of their capital carrying into office a man whose every utterance comes with an expiration date, who seems to have very quickly abused his power and has treated our traditional allies (who were partnering well with the United States from 2004-on) with contempt or disinterest. The press really cannot afford to admit that almost nothing they have said in the past 9 years has escaped ideological or political framing to suit their agenda. Implode, they will.

So the story must not be told, until it can be told from their self-protective angle which is undoubtedly under development as you read this.

This reminds me of Jon Stewart, on the Daily Show, back when Iraq had its first successful election -when even the press could not snarl too much at the pictures of women in hijab pointing their purple fingers in the air as they grinned. “What if Bush was right,” Stewart mused, with a horrified expression.

“What if Bush – the president, ours – has been right about [Iraq] all along? I feel like my world view will not sustain itself and I may – and, again, I don’t know if I can physically do this – implode.”

There is an anvil-heavy irony to all of this. Part of the smart/stupid, left/right narrative was built on the fantastic strawman that the AGW-doubters on the right were “enemies of science,” that first they were not allowing science to use human embryos for experimentation, and now they were daring to doubt the most imperative scientific advice in the history of mankind.

But if the excesses of the weather-sciences are about be discredited to the degree that -as some worry- may “bring all science into dispute”, then that harm comes not from the right, who simply dared to question, but solely from the left, who refused to permit questions, openness, transparency.

Too true. Global warming skeptics were treated either as oil industry shills and liars or deluded nuts; likened to Nazi sympathizers as global warming "deniers." Even now, the media has to point out that Bush opposed the Kyoto treaty and the global warming movement and praising Obama for taking the opposite position. How can they now report that global warming is in dispute while continuing to support the Obama position on Copenhagen? It's obvious that they can't report both the scandal and support Obama on global warming. The press must support Obama and ClimateGate becomes a non-story. To do otherwise would destroy their entire worldview.

The Democrat Party Dines in Washington, as interpreted by Monty Python

In the wilding of Sarah Palin, the Left shows its true colors. Rather than shield the vulnerable, leftists will mow down any man, woman, or child who gets in their way. Instead of a movement of hope and change, it is a cauldron of hate.

"A cauldron of hate" pretty much sums it up, doesn't it? It's bubbling away everywhere you look in Democrat politics these days, and it is giving off a worse and worse stench as "friendly persuasion" gives way to bribery, corrupt ethics and morals, thuggery, buggery, and a rising and shrill insistence that all Americans simply give up their reservations and chow down on another heaping plate of Democrat bullshit.

Friday, November 27, 2009

The Science Bubble Explodes

The 21st Century has, in less than a decade, seen the explosion of three “bubbles.” In 2001 we saw the tech bubble explode, leaving in its wake the collapse of numerous fortunes and a renewed appreciation for value rather than promises of ever more extravagant high-tech dreams. Tech stocks were valued at hundreds if not thousand times their earnings, and even more if they had no earnings at all. And then it all came tumbling down and took with them venerable names like Bell Labs (Lucent).

Swearing that the stock market was rigged, people decided to put their money in houses. “Real estate never goes down” was the new mantra, and as evidence we saw houses “flipped” – on TV - for huge profits and real estate assessments climb 20, 30 or 40% per year, proving how to get rich by simply buying your own home. And then the real estate bubble burst and crushed people whose mortgages were larger, much larger than their homes' values. And the people who owned these mortgages? They could not get rid of their worthless loans and venerable names like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers went out of business, whole governments throughout the world injected capital (read credibility) into the remaining lenders to prevent a total global financial collapse.

And now, out of the blue, we see something that the innocent bystanders never expected to see: a collapse of the “science bubble.” It’s early yet in this collapse. As in previous bubbles, the professionals, the press and the government tell us that it's just a blip. Here are some echoes of the past:

“Buy Enron when it’s down 50%” was the advice; you’ll never see it this cheap again!

Here’s your chance to buy your dream house at low, low interest rates … no money down, no principal payment for 10 years! No credit, no job, no problem!

And now we’re told that the global warming science is still settled even though the “scientists” pushing global warming conspired to keep opponents from publishing, created computer models that were pure sludge, refused to share their data so that it could be checked, and claimed that they lost large parts of their original data. And the experts, press and politicians are telling us that it’s just a blip, a glitch, not to worry, they know what they're doings and that they are going ahead with their plans to re-make the world.

The unforeseen outcome of this scandal goes way beyond the issue off global warming. Just as the collapse of the tech bubble did not just affect one or two companies or even just tech stocks, and the collapse of the housing bubble did not just affect homeowners. Scientists in all fields will be eyed with suspicion. The next time I read a news article that includes the phrase “scientists say,” my BS detectors will go off. Because scientists say a lot of things and it’s now apparent that a lot of it is a lie.

You know, it's a bubble here. Look at it this way. The global warming bubble, we just heard it burst. The question is: How will that explosion affect the Universe of Lies? This past decade, we have lived and suffered through a dot-com bubble, stock bubbles, the housing bubble. We all know the problem with bubbles: They eventually burst. Bubbles refer to things that are grossly overvalued. When bubbles burst, values leave the Universe of Lies and reenter the Universe of Reality. The dot-com bubble brought reality to the stock market. The housing bubble brought reality to the housing market. And so will the global warming bubble eventually bring reality to science. Man-made global warming may be in the process of reentering the Universe of Reality, finding its true value. It's a debunked theory of junk science promulgated by junk political scientists. Big Science can no longer be trusted as things stand today. Science, the media, government, and academia: The Four Corners of Deceit in the Universe of Lies.

Bubbles are self-perpetuating climbs in value that defy free market principles. They defy checks and balances. They're lies -- counterfeit truth, if you will. Bubbles occur when hope triumphs over reason, when speculation jumps ahead of fact. It all becomes obvious in hindsight after values have fallen back to earth and reality. A bubble occurs when speculators note rapid increases in value and buy in anticipation of further increases, rather than buying because something is undervalued. Bubbles are false values. It's why everybody worries about them. It's why everybody worries, "When's this bubble going to burst?" Because everybody knows when you've got a bubble, you've got a fraud. You've got false values -- and when those bubbles burst, we all fall back into the Universe of Reality, and it can be a very hard fall.

Our president, as uncomfortable as I am saying this, is a crook speculator perpetuating the global warming bubble -- and this will eventually be seen as a bubble. Bubbles are best seen in hindsight, because whatever euphoria that once existed surrounding the issue or the industry vanishes, and things come back into focus. This week we have seen and heard the global warming bubble burst. The effects of this exploding bubble may impact the entire field of science, a field that once only existed in the Universe of Reality. In fact, its purpose was to honestly, objectively, relentlessly define the Universe of Reality and disparage those things that exist in the Universe of Lies, and now science has been corrupted.

It is one of the Four Corners of Deceit in the Universe of Lies. It is the antithesis of what we all thought science was. The bursting of the global warming bubble has created a mess, and it cannot be swept under the rug -- no matter how hard the State-Controlled Media tries. The industry known as "science" has just seen their Fannie Mae and Freddie Macs exposed, and just like with the housing bubble, the United States government is in the middle of this fraud. Our government has fueled the speculation around the housing and global warming bubbles. They have tried to profit from it. They will never admit responsibility. Neither bubble will ever be investigated by this government.

Despite the words “humane society” on its letterhead, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is not affiliated with your local animal shelter. Despite the omnipresent dogs and cats in its fundraising materials, it’s not an organization that runs spay/neuter programs or takes in stray, neglected, and abused pets. And despite the common image of animal protection agencies as cash-strapped organizations dedicated to animal welfare, HSUS has become the wealthiest animal rights organization on earth.

HSUS is big, rich, and powerful, a “humane society” in name only. And while most local animal shelters are under-funded and unsung, HSUS has accumulated $113 million in assets and built a recognizable brand by capitalizing on the confusion its very name provokes. This misdirection results in an irony of which most animal lovers are unaware: HSUS raises enough money to finance animal shelters in every single state, with money to spare, yet it doesn’t operate a single one anywhere.

Instead, HSUS spends millions on programs that seek to economically cripple meat and dairy producers; eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research labs; phase out pet breeding, zoos, and circus animal acts; and demonize hunters as crazed lunatics. HSUS spends $2 million each year on travel expenses alone, just keeping its multi-national agenda going.

HSUS president Wayne Pacelle described some of his goals in 2004 for The Washington Post: “We will see the end of wild animals in circus acts … [and we’re] phasing out animals used in research. Hunting? I think you will see a steady decline in numbers.” More recently, in a June 2005 interview, Pacelle told Satya magazine that HSUS is working on “a guide to vegetarian eating, to really make the case for it.” A strict vegan himself, Pacelle added: “Reducing meat consumption can be a tremendous benefit to animals.”

The Media Has As Much Invested In the Global Warming Hoax As The Hoaxers. "Keep the Hoax Alive."

The desperate denial on the part of the press that global warming is a hoax is testimony to the fact that they have as much invested in the hoax as the hoaxers themselves.

This is obvious for two reasons.

Global warming is the perfect vehicle for government control of … pretty much everything. As a vehicle for fascism, it’s right up there with government control of health care. The twenty-first century world’s energy – with the exception of primitive areas where human and animal energy predominates – is based on carbon based fuels. Outlaw those, and demand that people do with less or pay staggeringly high prices for alternative energy sources and you put modern humanity in a government hammerlock. And the media are dominated by people for whom government control is a “good thing” as Martha Stewart would say. Name a problem and no newspaper editorial board will pause a nanosecond before proposing a government solution. “There ought to be a law” is the cry of every publisher, editor and reporter still working in the newspaper industry.

The press, having acted as the pipeline through which the hoax has been transmitted to a gullible public, owns the lie. A few analogies come to mind. The press owns the image of Obama as smart, wise, cool and capable; able to end racial divisions, lower ocean levels and end war and strife by doing things “smart.” He was the savior they were looking for. That’s what they sold us as they shoveled his unsavory associates and lack of any meaningful experience down the memory hole as fast as they could. That’s the theme as they talk about “green shoots” and an improving economy even as hundreds of thousands more apply for unemployment each month. That’s the theme as rogue states around the world join the nuclear club and Russia reasserts its dominance in Eastern Europe. They cannot disown him without disowning their own hype and so they won’t. In the press, Obama will be Christ, FDR and Lincoln in one package even as the rest of the world begins to titter at our man-child “leader.” The other analogy is an oil pipeline. The pipeline is as much dependent on the oil as the oil producers themselves. Stop the oil and the pipeline is useless. End the global warming hoax and lots of white space shows up in your daily contribution to solid waste pollution - your newspaper. Besides, the people who work in newspaper offices, graduates with degrees in English Lit and Journalism, actually believe this stuff.

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Things I'm Grateful For

Despite rumors to the contrary, there is no evidence that Obama is a space lizard in disguise trying to gain our trust so he can later eat us. And even if he is, he’s not doing so great anymore at gaining our trust.

Moving the goalposts onto another field

You can’t say that the MSM is totally ignoring the scandal caused by the release of the CRU memos showing that man-made “global warming” is either unproven or a total fraud. They just have not deigned to discuss this issue with the people. However, if you Google “H. Josef Hebert” you will find that he is the Associated Press bigfoot whose focus is on the environment, and specifically on global warming .. er climate change.

Well, the focus has changed. Hebert “reports” on Obama’s trip to the Copenhagen “climate summit.”

With a few obligatory references to global warming and “congressional resistance” we are given an entirely new reason to reduce CO2 emissions.

His article dated November 26th 2009 reveals that the new reason for reducing carbon dioxide and it’s no longer global warming or climate change. The new reason for cutting carbon dioxide is

“ … slashing carbon dioxide emissions also could save millions of lives, mostly by reducing preventable deaths from heart and lung diseases, according to studies published this week in the British medical journal The Lancet.

The frauds at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit have just been thrown under the bus by the MSM while the term “moving the goalpost” has taken on an entirely new meaning.

When the goal is government control of the economy and the tool for this control is carbon dioxide emissions, the reasons can morph in ways that make “Transformers” envious. The move from the term "global warming” to “climate change” (which covers anything having to do with climate) has now been superseded by “death prevention.”

The goalposts have been taken from the football field and planted on the baseball diamond.

It’s literally breathtaking.

In one dazzling display of media dexterity, Hebert does a journalistic “triple axel:” Obama remains the hope of mankind, CO2 remains the villain, and the climate change hoaxers are relegated to the dustbin of history.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

The MSM are still covering their ears and singing "lalalalala" as they try to ignore the story, or as in the case of my paper, the Virginian Pilot, bury it with a few paragraph mention on the back pages surrounded by scare stories about how global waring is going to kill us ... unless we eliminate carbon emissions by buying windmills from GE, solar panels, and stopping coal and oil production.

An hilariously bizarre situation is happening in the wake of the growing Climategate scandal. Many of the mainstream media stories about global warming are simply pretending it doesn't exist. Perhaps they feel that by ignoring Climategate entirely that it will just go away. Unfortunately for them, the readers of these global warming stories keep bringing up the inconvenient truth of Climategate by mentioning the scandal in the comments section over and over and over again.

An example is this Houston Chronicle editorial which asserts in its headline, "As a crucial climate change conference nears, more evidence of a warming globe." And as the editorial reveals its "evidence," note what is conspicuously missing although the readers will bring it up much to the embarrassment of the Chonicle:

The Global Carbon Project study concludes that unless emissions are substantially reduced, the result would be a rise in average global temperature by nearly 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. That is on par with previous worst-case scenarios outlined by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Scientists have estimated that temperature spikes above 2 degrees could have disastrous consequences, including large rises in sea level, droughts and stronger storms.

One of the authors of the study, Professor Corinne Le Quere of the University of East Anglia, says the conclusions raise the stakes for delegates to the Copenhagen gathering, who will try to hammer out a successor to the Kyoto Accords that committed signatory governments to emission reduction goals. The United States did not sign on to that agreement.

University of East Anglia? Hmmm... Where have I heard about this university in the recent past? Something about hacked e-mails, manipulated data, and a coverup? This editorial won't bring up the scandal that dare not speak its name but the readers are not shy about bringing it up over and over and over again:

Oh dear .. I think you have a bit of catching up to do.

Scandal? What scandal? We're as willfully clueless about this as Charlie Gibson is about the ACORN scandal.

Apparently, the clowns on the Houston Comical editorial board do zero research prior to sitting down at the keyboard to compose their lies. The "researchers" at East Anglia have been exposed as the perpetrators of a massive fraud by manipulating statistics. Yet, here comes the Comical citing the liars at East Anglia in support of their thesis. It's all over the news - even the Houston Comical. (Maybe the editorial board doesn't read the Comical - only the press releases of the DNC.)

Monday, November 23, 2009

The other great speech of the U.S. campaign season was Sarah Palin's on receiving the vice-presidential slot on the McCain ticket. This was a speech delivered under even greater pressures than that of Mr. Obama. John McCain's choice of Ms. Palin had been early and widely criticized, and in some quarters ferociously reviled. She had never really been under the national spotlight before. The entire media were focused on her with an intensity almost unseen in the annals of vice-presidential politics. If she'd been just “okay,” or messed up, John McCain's campaign was over. It was the highest of high-stakes gambles.

Did she deliver? She soared. She was the very acme of self-confidence and ease. She mixed a natural charm with a mischievous edge of sarcasm toward her opponents – even daring the unthinkable by pinging The One himself. It was her “first serve” on the national stage and she delivered an ace. The backwoods hick knocked it out of the hall that night – not only did she not sink the McCain campaign, she gave it the only real vitality and spark that gloomy, tight, fussy little campaign had from start to finish....Her speech, in fact, was the rhetorical equivalent of Mr. Obama's crucial one. They do not as speakers, it is obvious, share the same idiom. Mr. Obama is utterly composed, deliberate down to gesture and word, very conscious that he is a “figure” on a stage. Mr. Obama “bestows” himself on an audience. Ms. Palin has none of that. She will never speak in front of faux Greek columns. She walks on the stage much the same way she'd go into a gas station. But she's shrewd in her choice of themes, has a marvellous feel for her audience, and a confidence that will never be confused with arrogance.

Ms. Palin is a real and evolving element in the great story of American politics. She is the “other half” of the Obama moment, and she may be in the ascendant. Mr. Obama is losing his lustre, his appeal is dimming, at the very moment the Alaskan outsider is staking her claim. Those who call her a joke are expressing an anxious hope not offering a rational description.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

My Sister Goes to a Sarah Palin Book Signing in Grand Rapids

It was an all day affair but well worth the effort. With the number of people at the signing we didn't know if they would just shove us through or if we would have a chance to say something.

Some people spent the night outside the mall, the earliest people coming even before the mall closed the night before. I got there at 6:15 in the morning. On the way there, I was listening to WOOD 1300 and they said there were so many people at the mall entrance already, if you weren't there you might as well forget it. I decided I was not listening to that, but I wonder how many people didn't come because of what they said.

They were opening the doors at 7:00 to give out the wristbands and sell the books. The actual book signing started at 6:00PM. It was chilly and breezy outside, but not frigid and the only thing that got really cold were my feet. Should have worn hiking boots instead of shoes. A really cute young couple, newly married, was in front of me in line. The guy was very tall and very cold, but his wife wouldn't let him leave. We finally made it to the Mall doors by 9:30 and that was welcome warmth. As an aside, I had a dentist appointment scheduled for Tuesday the 17th, which I had been able to switch to Wednesday, since my dentist office is not far from the Mall. My appointment was supposed to be at 10:00, which I thought would be plenty of time; little did I know. We were still not quite in the store by 10:00, so the tall young man let me use his Blackberry to call the dentist office to tell them where I was. After all the time in line I wasn't leaving, and I guess they had quite a laugh at the office.

After I got the books and wrist band I headed to the Dentist. Pam, my hygienist, was able to rearrange her schedule so I even still got my cleaning in. After that I went back to the mall, ate lunch, and got right back into the already growing line by 2:00. At least this time we got to wait inside. I had wondered what I was going to do with all my time in Grand Rapids, but then I knew the answer; stand in line. They did start the signing right at 6:00, we got into the store by 7:00 and were out by 7:30.

When I finally got to her table, she shook my hand, I thanked her for coming to Grand Rapids and told her that my son Matt wanted me to tell her he thought she was awesome. She, looked up, flashed that great smile, and said to tell him thank you very much, and thanks for the encouragement. She struck me as very genuine, no special airs, certainly not a diva.

I plan on putting the book in the mail to you tomorrow. Consider it my Christmas present to you guys. I had a lot of fun, met a lot of neat people in line and even saw Andrea Mitchel, NBC News. She is a little person with quite a large nose.

You can't buy that commitment. These are people who will stand in line all day in the cold to get an autographed copy of her book. The Left hates her, the middle is doubtful, but the Right loves her with an intensity that burns like a nova. Love is stronger than hate. She may be the next Ronald Reagan and the nay-sayers have no idea what they are dealing with.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

I was going to start this essay with the question: are the people who work for the Virginian Pilot “teabaggers?” Let me explain how that term has come to relate to the “arrogant bullies” part of the headline.

About a year ago, a middle class revolt began by people who called their meetings “tea parties.” The MSM (or as Rush Limbaugh characterizes them, the “State Run Media” for their slavish devotion to the Obama administration), beginning with the execrable Anderson Cooper, began to snigger and call the Tea Party goers “teabaggers.” No one outside of the environs of the media (and the sexually perverse) knew that this was a reference to a sex act. Just to be clear, “teabagging” refers to the sex act in which a male places his scrotum in the mouth of his partner. This is the kind of perverse sophomoric put-down that represents the sum total of Liberal discussion of conservatives and their ideas. It’s representative of the arrogance and the intellectual bullying that the Left engages in. An in-joke that’s intended to demean and insult. And it’s caught on in an administration that thrives on the ability to demean and insult. Obama himself now refers to the Tea Party protesters as teabaggers. It’s all of a piece with giving the finger to his debate opponents, his telling Hillary that she’s “likeable enough” and referring to Sarah Palin as a pig. It’s the sort of thing that people do whose development is arrested. It’s the sort of thing that people do who have contempt for ordinary people. It’s the arrogant bullying of the “in crowd” in Mean Girls.

John Stossel describes the way that Liberals want to run our lives. It’s the reason behind their desire to take over the health care industry. There are literally dozens of ways of getting uninsured people health insurance, at less cost and with less disruption of the current system. But the desire for control is overwhelming in Liberalism; they can’t help themselves.

The arrogance of the self anointed Liberal elite is breathtaking.

It's not that taxes don't anger me. They do. But I'm more angry about the arrogance of the ruling class. It reminds me of Walter Williams' riff: "Politicians are worse than thieves. At least when thieves take your money, they don't expect you to thank them for it."

Taxes, even counting hidden taxes, are not the real measure of what the thieves take. The true burden of government, the late Milton Friedman said, is the spending level. Taxation is just one way government gets money. The other ways -- borrowing and inflation -- are equally burdens on the people. (State governments can't inflate, but they sure can borrow.)

O'Reilly told me that America is ready for a tax revolt. I hope he's right. But I don't think it will happen until more people see the ruling elite for what it is: a gang of arrogant bullies that has the audacity to believe that they know how to direct our lives better than we do.

That's why, bad as the taxes are, I'm more upset about ObamaCare, Medicare, the "stimulus," the auto bailout, the bank bailouts, the Fannie/Freddie bailouts, the trillions in guarantees, and on and on.

The politicians' spending schemes represent presumptuous interference in our lives. They are an assault on our autonomy.

Every day the newspaper has another call for government to do, to act, to control, to regulate, all for “our own good.” Never a call for getting out of our lives, leaving us alone, providing a space to breathe free of the overwhelming power of the almighty State. They’re “teabaggers.” And not in a nice way.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

After describing two Canadian Muslim women, part of the "moderate" Muslim majority, this troubling conclusion arises:

Both Hardi and Mubarka present us with a perplexing conundrum because they are members of what has become known as the “peaceful” Muslim majority. They don’t have a violent bone in their bodies, and are clearly law abiding and productive members of Canadian society. But, they are also both part of a very small minority within Canada where they and their fellow Muslims have very little effect on Canadian politics or on the evolution of Canadian cultural norms. What if though, Hardi and Mubarka were part of a Muslim majority where they and their co-religionists held the power?

Both women are Muslims first and Canadians second. No matter how much respect one may have for either woman’s character, there is little doubt where either would place her loyalty if faced with chosing between the Canadian traditions of liberty for all, or Sharia. There is also little doubt that if they were part of a majority, they would acquiesce to the demands of the Muslim clerical class and choose Sharia for all Canadians.

It is therefore irrelevant in the grand scheme of things whether or not Hardi or Mubarka are “good” people; most people on the planet are, no matter their religion, race, or culture. What matters in the greater sense, is that as parts of the Muslim collective, neither woman would set aside her Muslim beliefs in order to safeguard and protect the full rights of non-Muslims to live as they choose. What’s even more disturbing, is that both women have experienced the gender freedoms afforded them in Canada, yet both have voluntarily resigned themselves to the greater Muslim collective.

As long as each woman is part of a small minority within Canada, she offers Canada much; but once she becomes part of a significant minority, or heaven forbid, a majority, she becomes dangerous. Why? Because Muslims wherever they form a majority choose Islamic norms over the broader more tolerant standards of the West. If given a chance, as has been clearly demonstrated the world over, they would unravel hundreds of years of hard fought human rights gains and replace them with the medieval practices of their faith. As such, both Hardi and Mubarka are simply bit players in a monstrous and destructive Muslim vortex that would drag civilization backwards hundreds of years.

What about the emphasis on Hasan's supposedly knife-edge mental state? Well, even supposing it to have been precarious, it can hardly have been improved by immersion in the rantings of Anwar al-Awlaki. I do not say that all practitioners of woman-hating, anti-Semitic, sadomasochistic suicide immolations are themselves insane, but I do say that the teaching itself is demented. In the same way, I do not say that all Muslims are terrorists, but I have noticed that an alarmingly high proportion of terrorists are Muslim. A paranoid or depressive person—of whom we have many millions in our midst—does not have to end up screaming religious slogans while butchering his fellow creatures. But a paranoid or depressive person who is in regular touch with a jihadist "spiritual leader" is presented with a ready-made script that offers him paradise in exchange for homicide.....

By the time the mushy "pre-post-traumatic" school was done with the story, Maj. Hasan was not just acquitted of being a bad Muslim. He was more or less exonerated of having even done a bad deed....I wrote some years ago that the three most salient characteristics of the Muslim death-squad type were self-righteousness, self-pity, and self-hatred. Surrounded as he was by fellow shrinks who were often very distressed by his menacing manner, Maj. Hasan managed to personify all three traits—with the theocratic rhetoric openly thrown in for good measure—and yet be treated even now as if the real word for him was troubled. Prepare to keep on meeting those three symptoms again, along with official attempts to oppose them only with therapy, if that. At least the holy warriors know they are committing suicide.

I bought another Garmin Nuvi

I love these things. Without a GPS I have spent literally hours trying to find an address in a small town like Roanoke or Lynchburg, Virginia. Since getting my first Garmin Street Pilot years ago I never have to worry about getting lost, or wasting time driving around wondering where I am and where I'm going.

The prices have come down, portability has improved and functionality has increased. They make great gifts.

RUSH: We are going to open this hour with a rare personal interview, a rare guest. It doesn't happen much on this program, but we are happy to have with us former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, whose book, Going Rogue, hits the shelves today and it's already headed for I think a record in sales. Governor Palin, thanks for making time. It's great to talk to you again. We spoke last Thursday in an interview for the Limbaugh Letter, but it's great to have you here on the radio.

GOV. PALIN: Hey, thank you so much, and dittos from an Alaskan.

RUSH: Where are you, by the way? Where are we speaking to you from?

GOV. PALIN: In a hotel room in New York City. I'm going to do a couple of interviews after that and then head to Grand Rapids for the kickoff of the book tour.

RUSH: This is going to be exciting. Are you looking forward to that?

GOV. PALIN: I am so looking forward to this. I cannot wait to meet some of these good Americans all across this country. It's going to be a blast.

RUSH: They can't wait to meet you, judging by the reception you got during the campaign. Now, ladies and gentlemen, Governor Palin, when we spoke last Thursday I spoke to her a lot about the things in her book regarding the campaign. That stuff you'll read in the Limbaugh Letter, and I predicted to Governor Palin then that much of her book would be ignored in light of the dirt that she was supposedly dishing from the campaign. So Governor Palin what I'd like to do here is go some different directions from what we did in the newsletter interview and start with the economy. We have 10.2% unemployment. We see no end in sight. The administration and others are suggesting next year could be just as bad with unemployment going up to 11%. What would you do differently than is being done now?

GOV. PALIN: It's over 10%, and in fact it could be closer to 17 or 18 when you consider those who have kind of given up and are not applying for unemployment benefits. So it's bad, it's really bad and then of course Fed Chair Bernanke announced that there are still weak job prospects for the very short term and probably long term, and that's an uncomfortable place for our country to be. What we need to do is shift gears and really head in another direction because what we're doing right now with the Fed, it's not working. We need to cut taxes on the job creators. This is all about jobs, creating jobs. We have to ramp up industry here in America, and of course reduce the federal debt, quit piling on and growing more. But those commonsense solutions there, especially with the cutting taxes on the job creators, that's not even being discussed. In fact, increased taxes is the direction it sounds like Obama wants to go.

RUSH: You mean that you don't even hear it being discussed on the Republican side or within the administration?

GOV. PALIN: Within the administration, and as it is discussed on the Republican side, Republicans need to be bolder about it. Independents need to be bolder about that solution that has got to be considered and plugged in. This is the only solution that will be successful. We need to rehash some history that proves its success. Let's go back to what Reagan did in the early eighties and stay committed to those commonsense free market principles that worked. He faced a tougher recession than what we're facing today. He cut those taxes, ramped up industry, and we pulled out of that recession. We need to revisit that.

RUSH: Why do you think this administration is ignoring that blueprint? What is their ultimate objective here? They're sitting in the middle of abject failure of their number-one stated goal, and that's job creation. So what are they really trying to do here do you think?

GOV. PALIN: Well, you wonder, you wonder because history proves what will work and you wonder if they're realizing that and if it's just perhaps a stubbornness at this point that they are so committed to going down this road of growing government and interjecting the Feds' control in the private sector more and more, which will prove to be more failure. I don't know if it's obstinate thinking that they're engaged in right now or if they truly just do not believe what the free market, free enterprise economic solutions are that built up this country.

RUSH: Do you think this is going to be a major issue in the congressional elections in 2010, and if so, how would you advise Republicans to pursue it?

GOV. PALIN: It better be a major issue, absolutely. Of course, national security will be, too, and hopefully we'll talk a little bit about some of the decisions being made in that arena that cause so many of us concern but, yeah, the economy, that's what it's going to be because it's all about jobs, it's all about Americans who are hurting right now and what those solutions are that are so obvious, so commonsense that need to be plugged in. And those are Republican, they're commonsense conservative principles that we just need to apply.

RUSH: New York-23 is being portrayed as a race in which you and I -- because we supposedly went up there -- handpicked Doug Hoffman, he supposedly lost, even though that race, they still haven't finished counting the votes. It's two weeks! This is not Chicago. They haven't finished counting the votes. He says he wishes he could un-concede now. But they're trying to diminish conservatism, and I think in the process intimidate the Republican Party from going in that direction. What's your read on New York-23?

GOV. PALIN: I think this is exciting. It's encouraging. No matter the outcome even with his recount of some of those, well, uncounted ballots, it's exciting that the race is going to be even closer, and it's a clearer and clearer picture that what Americans are seeking, even in a district there in New York, they are seeking commonsense, conservative solutions to all the challenges that we're facing. I'm glad to see this.

RUSH: So the positive thing there is that the Republican Party was rebuffed in nominating essentially a RINO, a liberal?

GOV. PALIN: Well, I think what you saw there is -- and of course it's not just the Republican machine, it's the Democrat machine, too. You know, if you're not the anointed one within the machine, sometimes you have a much tougher row to hoe and that's what Hoffman faced. He was the underdog. I think great timing for him, though, to stand strong on his conservative credentials and essentially come out of nowhere and prove that an American without that resume, without that machine backing can truly make a difference in an election like this.

RUSH: Well, now, you used the term, "If you're not the anointed one by the party machine, you're the underdog and you have a tough row to hoe." Based on things that I read, the Republican establishment would not anoint you to be a nominee of their party should you choose to go that way. I'm not asking you the question because I know you're not going to answer and give away what your plans are in 2012.

GOV. PALIN: (chuckles)

RUSH: Do you consider yourself one of these unanointed ones within your own party?

GOV. PALIN: Well, to some in both parties, politics is more of a business. It's not so much a commitment to an agenda or a person or values or issues. It's more of a business -- and, no, I'm not a part of that. So if they're going to keep using that way of thinking in their decisions on who they anoint, who they will support or not then, no. I'll never be a part of that. But hopefully we're going to see a shift with independents, with the Republican Party and the Democrat Party, and we're going to get back to what the issues are, what really matters, and then hopefully we're going to go from there, which will be much fairer to the electorate.

RUSH: All right, independents, slash, third party. A lot of people -- mistakenly, in my view -- are looking at New York-23 as evidence that, see, a third party could actually do well. But that's not a good example because there was no primary there. As you said, the party bosses chose Dede Scozzafava on the Republican side and a Democrat. Had there been a primary, New York-23 would not have been constituted as it was. So what are your thoughts now on the viability of a third party if the Republican Party can't be brought around?

GOV. PALIN: You know, to be brutally honest, I think that it's a bit naive when you talk about the pragmatism that has to be applied in America's political system. And we are a two-party system. Ideally, sure, a third party or an independent party would be able to soar and thrive and put candidates forth and have them elected, but I don't think America is ready for that. I think that it is... Granted it's quite conventional and traditional, but in a good way that we have our two parties, and I think that that's what will remain. And I say that, though, acknowledging that I'm not an obsessive panther, I understand why people -- good people like my own husband -- refuse to register in a party. Todd's not a Republican and yet he's got more commonsense conservatism than a whole lot of Republicans that I know because he is one who sees the idiosyncrasies of the characters within the machine and it frustrates him along with a whole lot of other Americans who choose to be independent. But in answer to your question, I don't think that the third party movement will be what's necessary to usher in some commonsense conservative ideals.

RUSH: Now, you mentioned independents. We need to get independents. Independents right now are abandoning the Democrat Party. They did so in New Jersey. They did so in Virginia. And the White House pretty much proves this because the White House was out prior to the election saying, "Ah, Republican Party identification in polls is as low as it's ever been." Therefore, for Republicans to win these races there had to be independents moving in their direction. Now, I know you're not in politics now but you have political experience. I'm not in politics. I've never gone out and gotten votes. I've always been curious about the professional politicians' insistence that we go out and "get independents." Sure you want to shore up the base. But these magical, whatever it is, 20% of people that are not identified or do not self-identify themselves with either party, what's the way to get them?

GOV. PALIN: I think just naturally independents are going to gravitate towards that Republican agenda and Republican platform because the planks in our platform are the strongest to build a healthy America. We're all about cutting taxes and shrinking government and respecting the inherent rights of the individual and strengthening families and respecting life and equality. You have to shake your head and say, "Who wouldn't embrace that? Who wouldn't want to come on over?" They don't have to necessarily be registered within the Republican Party in order to hook up with us and join us with that agenda standing on those planks. In Alaska, about 70% of Alaskans are independent. So that's my base. That's where I am from and that's been my training ground, is just implementing commonsense conservative solutions. Independents appreciate that. You're going to see more and more of that attraction to the GOP by these independents as the days go on.

RUSH: If the GOP articulates what you just articulated. I've always believed the way to get them... Reagan got them by just being who he was, articulating conservatism. Conservatism is nothing different than the founding principles of the country. Therefore, the key to getting independents is Republicans who can articulate those beliefs.

GOV. PALIN: You know another key to this, too, is to not hesitate duking it out within the party. This is what I appreciate about the Republican Party. We have contested, aggressive, competitive primaries. We're not like this herd mentality like a bunch of sheep -- with the fighting instincts of sheep, as Horowitz would say -- like some in the Democrat Party; where, heaven forbid, you take a stand and you oppose somebody within your own party because it's the right thing to do. I appreciate that in the Republican Party. Some on the other side say -- you know, they're observing what goes on in the GOP and say -- "That's infighting, and they can't get along, and there's no consensus there." No. This is healthy debate, good competition that makes candidates work harder. It makes for a better product, if you will, at the end of the day. I appreciate that about our party.

RUSH: We are talking to Governor Sarah Palin. We take a brief prosperity time-out. We'll be back and continue with Governor Palin right after this.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: And we're back. Our remaining moments with former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, starting her book tour today. Let's talk about your book tour, your career in general, Governor Palin. Who are you trying to reach, and for what purpose, with the book and your book tour? What's your goal here?

GOV. PALIN: I'm not trying to reach the liberal elites in this country, and it's a good thing I'm not trying to, because I'm not succeeding there. Just everyday, hardworking Americans who want government back on their side and I want to help them have their voice be heard. And the book is all about that, and the book is about my record and my accomplishments as a mayor and as a governor that kind of lay the foundation for Americans to see where it was that I was and how I got to where I am. It was just a lot of hard work and it was a lot of very commonsense measures that I undertook politically and practically speaking, and the book is about that, and hopefully people will read it and enjoy it and learn something from it.

RUSH: What's our biggest energy challenge as a country? Do you believe at all or some or a lot in the modern-day go-green movement of solar and wind and all of these nefarious things that really don't produce anything yet?

GOV. PALIN: I think there's a lot of snake oil science involved in that and somebody's making a whole lot of money off people's fears that the world is... It's kind of tough to figure out with the shady science right now, what are we supposed to be doing right now with our climate. Are we warming or are we cooling? I don't think Americans are even told anymore if it's global warming or just climate change. And I don't attribute all the changes to man's activities. I think that this is, in a lot of respects, cyclical and the earth does cool and it warms. And our greatest challenge with energy is that we're not tapping it to the abundant domestic supplies that God created right underfoot on American soil and under our waters. It's ridiculous that we are circulating hundreds of billions of dollars a year in foreign countries, asking them to ramp up production so that we can purchase it from them -- especially from the regimes that can control us via energy, using it as a weapon against us, potentially. It's nonsense that this administration and past administrations haven't really understood yet that inherent link between energy and security. I think more and more Americans are waking up to the fact, though, and we will hopefully see changes there soon.

RUSH: Vice President Biden chided you, saying, "It's a little bit more complicated," Governor Palin, than "Drill, Baby, Drill," which is one of your chapter titles. What's complicated about drilling for oil?

GOV. PALIN: Exactly. What is complicated about tapping into abundant, safe domestic supplies that could provide stability for our country and security for our country? I know Alaska has billions of barrels of oil underfoot, and we have the natural gas that's waiting to be tapped, too; and other states do, too. It's not that complicated. It's political, and that's what is the shame in this, is that for political reasons we're not allowing to tap these domestic supplies.

RUSH: What are your thoughts on the congressional health care reform bills going through the House and the Senate?

GOV. PALIN: Well, we don't really know, do we, what's in that Senate version, the Senate consideration? It will be soon but we have no idea of costs. We don't know how many will be insured. We're waiting to hear that. We don't know if the tax funding of abortions will be in this new version that's sitting over on the Senate side. We don't know if those who choose not to purchase this government-mandated level of coverage will face jail time as punishment. There are so many questions unanswered. I don't like the idea, in general, of the federal government thinking it needs to take over health care -- which essentially this is -- and control one-sixth of our economy. Not when there are commonsense solutions to meeting health care challenges in our country, like allowing the intra- and interstate competition with insurers, tort reform, cutting down on the waste and fraud that the Obama administration insists if we just did that we'll pay for this one-point-some trillion-dollar health care reform package. So lots of commonsense solutions that need to be plugged in before ever considering federal government taking it over.

RUSH: You mentioned earlier you wanted to talk about national security, that you hoped it came up. Well, here it is: What do we face? What are our threats, and are we prepared, or not?

GOV. PALIN: Well, I think domestically a threat that we're facing right now is the dithering and hesitation in sending a message to the terrorists that we're going to claim what Ronald Reagan claimed. Our motto is going to be: "We win, you lose." The way that we do that is allow McChrystal to have the reinforcements that he's asking for in Afghanistan. That sends that message to the terrorists over there that we're going to end this thing with our victory. We need to start facing Iran with tougher and tougher sanctions that need to be considered. We need to work our allies with the Iranian issues, like Britain and France and not allow access to favorable international monetary deals. That's a great threat that I think would kind of shake up Ahmadinejad and get him to listen. We need to look at halting Iran's imports of refined petroleum products. They're quite reliant on imported gasoline, and we need to use that hammer to wake up the leadership there, too. Those are two big challenges that we have right now, domestically and in naming those two countries, Afghanistan and Iran. Two big challenges there, too.

RUSH: Thirty seconds: Immigration. Can you do it in 30 seconds before we have to go?

GOV. PALIN: I can't do it in 30 seconds but just know that... You know, let me put it simply: Illegal immigrants are called "illegal" for a reason. We need to crack down on this. We need to listen to the border states where the governors there have some solutions and we need to get serious about that.

RUSH: Governor Palin, thanks very much. It's been a pleasure. It's been fun. Thanks for last week as well and good luck on what I know is going to be a life-changing book and book tour.

ON THE ARCH-CONSERVATIVE, BUT ILLOGICAL NATURE OF GLOBAL WARMERS

Via Dennis Gartman

We have never hidden our antipathy toward those who believe in global warming, for we find their thesis illogical at worst, poorly based on ill-advised facts, and antiprogress.

As we said last week, and as we have said for years, however, we do indeed believe in global climate change. The climate always changes. The world is malleable and its climate has always changed… radically… and it will continue to change into the future. Man’s “imposition” on that change is minimal at best, made all but insignificant when compared to the effects of the sun, gravity, ocean drifts, tectonic plate shifts, et al.

However, what really bothers us are the egregious economic consequences of the demands being made by the likes of Al Gore and other global warming alarmists. The damage they shall wreak upon the US… and the global economy… is shocking, and none of it is good. According to the American Enterprise Institute, as reported in Newsweek magazine this week in George Will’s column, the Waxman-Markey “global warming” legislation, the goal is just slightly more than 1 billion tons of greenhouse-gas emissions in 2050. The last time this nation had that small an amount was 1910, when there were only 92 million Americans, 328 million fewer than the 420 million projected for 2050. To meet the 83 percent reduction target in a nation of 420 million, per capita carbon-dioxide emissions would have to be no more than 2.4 tonnes per person, which is one quarter the per capita emissions of 1910, a level probably last when the population was 45 million--- in 1875.

Forcing the US to accept such nonsense is the very worst of the Luddite-like, anti-business posture of the Left. It is reactionary to the highest degree imaginable, and it is what we call the illogical arch-conservatism of the eco-Left that must be stopped before very real damage can and will be done to the US and the global economy. What do these people smoke? And how often?

Government, having solved all the big problems, decides to invade our lives.

Dennis Gartman reminds us how intrusive the government actually is.

...the government is moving leftward rapidly here in the US, and as it moves leftward it becomes more and more intrusive into the day-to-day lives of the American people. The federal government mandates the size of our toilets; it mandates the water than can be pushed through our shower heads; it mandates fuel usage for automobiles; it has moved to stop the use of various bats in children’s’ baseball games; it mandates that children wear helmets when riding bicycles… and the list goes on. The Left makes these decisions because it believes it knows better how our lives are to be managed. This is nonsense, and it is becoming worse.

We note then that Dennis Kucinich, one of the most far-left-of-centre Congressmen from our former home state of Ohio, has proposed legislation that will disallow any tax deductions as a business expense for any advertising that is directed at children! What right does Mr. Kucinich have to tell the advertising companies of the US to whom they can advertise and why? Where in the Constitution is the power to regulate advertising to children granted to Congress? Which amendment was adopted that would allow Kucinich to even put this sort of legislation forward? We have read and re-read our copy of the Constitution, and the word “advertising” is not mentioned once! Yet, this sort of legislation has a good chance of passing.

The Obama Position

When you have an UberLiberal like Davide Obey telling you your numbers are fake, you have a problem. And when the number one issue that people are worried about is jobs, the problem is magnified.

Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wis.), who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, took the administration to task for pervasive errors on the Web site designed to monitor disbursement of the stimulus funds. He called those errors "outrageous."

"Credibility counts in government and stupid mistakes like this undermine it. We've got too many serious problems in this country to let that happen," Obey said in a statement. "Whether the numbers are good news or bad news, I want the honest numbers and I want them now."

Obey demanded a commitment from the executive branch that they would "work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes." Congress and the public should be able to trust reports by the Recovery Accountability and Transparency (RAT) Board, he said.

Here's a stimulus success story: In Arizona's 9th Congressional District, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that's what the website set up by the Obama Administration to track the $787 billion stimulus says.

There's one problem, though: There is no 9th Congressional District in Arizona; the state has only eight Congressional Districts.

There's no 86th Congressional District in Arizona either, but the government's recovery.gov Web site says $34 million in stimulus money has been spent there.

In fact, Recovery.gov lists hundreds of millions spent and hundreds of jobs created in Congressional districts that don't exist.

I wonder if either Obama or Biden will have the gall to mention the claim of jobs created or saved ever again.

We are beginning to see way too many echoes of the 1930s, as national socialist and Marxian socialist thugs try to drive competing political views off the streets. The worst offenders so far have been the Service Employees' International Union, which has repeatedly sent its members out into the streets to beat up anyone who isn't toeing the Obama line on issues like socialized medicine.

Most recently it's International ANSWER, a hard-core Communist group supported by shadowy funding sources that have never been made public, but appear to consist of a handful of rich people. ANSWER, notwithstanding its unabashedly Communist ideology, now feels comfortable enough to assault non-communist demonstrators who show up in the streets. In this case, the non-communists were protesting illegal immigration, seeking to uphold the nation's laws, when they were set upon by ANSWER's thugs:

It looks as if the Right will have to have its own "enforcers" in the streets since the ObamaPolice will not be there to stop the violence.

On the morning after the deadliest instance of Islamist terrorism in the United States since 9/11, President Obama warned the American public not to "jump to conclusions" about the motives that impelled Nidal Hasan's rampage of mass murder at Fort Hood.By the time Obama issued this warning, it had already been reported that Hasan yelled "Allahu akbar" before he opened fire. This assertion of the supremacy of Allah is invoked by Islamic terrorists worldwide before they kill. It was also known that Hasan's fellow participants in an Army program on public health had complained to military authorities about Hasan's anti-American propaganda.Hasan had made a presentation that justified suicide bombing and argued that the war on terror is a war against Islam.

Yet no conclusions were warranted, as far as Obama was concerned. "We cannot fully know what leads a man to do such a thing," our "philosopher in chief" intoned.

Obama has not always been cautious about jumping to conclusions.When a white police officer in Cambridge, Mass., arrested an African-American Harvard professor, the president was quick to proclaim that the officer had "acted stupidly." Obama was soon forced to back away from that statement, which was based on ignorance of the facts.

There is no underlying inconsistency between these seemingly divergent responses. Both are founded on the same antipathy Obama harbors toward America. Obama prematurely concluded that the professor's arrest was improper because this conclusion comported with his view that American law enforcement officers habitually harass black Americans. In Hasan's case, it was imperative to resist the obvious connection between Islamism and the killings because, in Obama's view, Americans habitually are on the verge of persecuting Muslims.

As the president's wife once put it, America is "just downright mean."

Our malevolence is not confined to relations with our own minority groups, either.In our president's opinion, we are global miscreants. For example, Obama has insisted that to compensate for our past arrogance, we need to negotiate, even absent any preconditions, with our worst enemies, including Iran. Applied to Russia, this has meant going hat in hand to the Kremlin and agreeing, among other concessions, to abandon missile defense for Russia's Eastern European neighbors in the hope of demonstrating that we have turned over a new leaf.

Obama must therefore believe that the thuggish, autocratic, expansionist Russian regime is more sinned against than sinning in its relations with the United States. But if Russia is our victim, are there any regimes as to which we hold the high moral ground? Judging by Obama's foreign policy to date, only Israel, Honduras, and perhaps Great Britain come to mind.

It might be argued in our defense that the United States faced down the Soviet Union, paving the way for the triumph of freedom in Central and Eastern Europe. But this fact apparently does not impress Obama.When heads of state gathered in Berlin last week to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, Obama was absent.

Obama did appear in Berlin via video. But the president omitted from his remarks any mention of the Soviet Union or communism, Harry Truman, or Ronald Reagan. As my blog partner Scott Johnson put it, Obama neither "decried the villains nor saluted the heroes of the story." That's because we were the heroes.

Obama reportedly is contemplating a visit to Hiroshima and Nagasaki , . . The venue is perfect for Obama's signature public hand-wringing on behalf of his country.

Obama's antipathy toward America should come as no surprise. Although he has lived a rich and varied life, there has been one constant - exposure to the left's disparaging narrative about America.

Obama grew up in a radically left-wing household, attended elite colleges where a jaundiced view of America is orthodox, and spent the remainder of his formative years as a community organizer alongside the likes of former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and the "God damn America" ranting Jeremiah Wright.

No wonder Obama is serving up a "God damn America lite" presidency.

What will be the consequences of that presidency? Domestically, we can expect the president to continue trying to remodel the American economy along radical lines. And given his mistrust of his countrymen's instincts, we can expect attempts to curb personal freedom.

Fortunately, in the domestic realm, Obama cannot implement very much of this agenda without the "consent of the governed," as expressed through their elected representatives. Thus, Obama can be constrained. If the electorate chooses not to constrain him, he will have earned the right to work his radical transformation.

In the area of foreign and national security policy, however, Obama can operate largely unchecked. And a weak, guilt-ridden policy toward our foreign adversaries is almost certain to produce grave consequences.

To some extent, we have seen this act before. The damage of just four years of Jimmy Carter's America-effacing presidency included Soviet expansion, communist inroads in Latin America, the replacement of a friendly government with a virulently anti-American theocracy in Iran, and a prolonged hostage crisis that came to symbolize the new American impotence.

But although Carter was ambivalent about America, his efforts to promote democracy abroad showed that he thought we had something to offer to world. Obama will not grant America even that. Emulating Carter the ex-president, rather than President Carter, Obama has shown essentially no interest in human rights or democracy promotion. His belated support of the Iranian protesters following this summer's election could hardly have been more lukewarm.

It seems that, in Obama's view, all we have to offer the world is our non-interference in its affairs, except perhaps when it comes to bullying our allies.

In the past, we have offered much more. We defeated fascism and communism, liberated Europe in two world wars, and took the lead in fighting back against Islamist extremism. A country burdened by a battered self-image will be incapable of any such achievements. We will suffer for it, and so will the world.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

President Obama, representative of the American people bows to Japan's Emperor

Like he bowed to the Saudi king.

When the story emerged from the shadows of the Internet, Ben Smith ran an item on Politico with the White House denying the bow. "It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah," said an Obama aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Oh?

Once may be a mistake, twice is a pattern.

Obama's breach of protocol is of a piece with the substance of his foreign policy. He means to teach Americans to bow before monarchs. He embodies the ideological multiculturalism that sets the United States on the same plane as other regimes based on tribal privilege and royal bloodlines. He gives expressive form to the idea that the United States now willingly prostrates itself before the rest of the world. He declares that the United States is a country like any other, only worse, because we have so much for which to apologize.

But let's not mistake his deference to hereditary rulers:

Obama is a man of extraordinary arrogance. He seeks fundamentally to transform the United States. With him, a new age begins.

Friday, November 13, 2009

Listening to government leaders and media avoid any connection between Islamist terrorism and the murderous attack at Ft. Hood is, to use their terminology, about as "twisted" and "nuts" as it gets....What is "twisted" is ignoring what Hasan believed and taught from the Quran to his fellow physicians at Walter Reed Hospital. One of them told Fox News: "He was a lightning rod. He made his views known and he was very vocal; he had extremely radical jihadist views." Despite the fact that high-ranking officers heard Hasan, they didn't report him because "they were too concerned about being politically correct."

Then there's the "nut" factor. These are the government and media whiz-bangs who feel competent to diagnose an individual who takes the Quran seriously, but are incompetent to spot terrorism.

Bob Schieffer, chief nut expert and host of CBS's "Sunday's Face the Nation," babbled that "Islam doesn't have a majority -- or the Christian religion has its full, you know, full helping of nuts too."

His guest, Sen. Lindsay Graham, agreed, and after lecturing the rest of us not to overreact, Graham then jumped to this crank conclusion. "It's certainly not about his religion, Islam. It's not about the army; it's not about the war. At the end of the day, I think it's going to be about him."

Yelling "Allahu Akbar" before killing soldiers isn't about his religion? Accusing the army of waging war against Islam isn't about the army? Objecting to the war isn't about the war?

Sen. Dick Durbin from Chicagoland added to the anti-reality frenzy: "How did it happen ... we must remain thoughtful and reserve judgment."

The clueless Durbin is the thoughtless military-basher who had to apologize for comparing our guards at Guantanamo Bay to "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others."

One thing we can conclude from Durbin and the Schieffer/Graham interview is that the media and the Senate have their share of mixed nuts.Then there's the FBI, which concluded in 2008 that Hasan didn't pose a terrorist threat, despite his contacts with "a Yemen-based militant Islamist prayer leader who had ties to Sept. 11, 2001 hijackers."

Here's the FBI's profile of the lone individual terrorist threat. If Hasan doesn't fit the profile, who does?

One particularly insidious concern that touches all forms of domestic extremism is the lone offender -- a single individual driven to hateful attacks based on a particular set of beliefs without a larger group's knowledge or support. In some cases, these lone offenders may have tried to join a group but were kicked out for being too radical or simply left the group because they felt it wasn't extreme or violent enough. We believe most domestic attacks are carried out by lone offenders to promote their own grievances and agendas.

FBI director Robert Mueller told Congress in 2007 that "[t]he diversity of homegrown extremists and the direct knowledge they have of the United States makes the threat they pose potentially very serious. The radicalization of U.S. Muslim converts is of particular concern."

“True, the actor was outspoken in his Confederate sympathies and viewed himself as a Southerner,” said someone who knew him, “but that was no reason he might want Lincoln to be dead.” The day before he went on his shooting spree, Booth hoisted a big Confederate flag outside his hotel room. After he leaped onto the stage he shouted, "Thus ever to tyrants!" the motto of the rebel state of Virginia.

The New York Times reported that Booth was psychologically unstable and was frightened of the Civil War coming to an end and having to face a peacetime actors’ surplus. “His political views had nothing to do with the motives for this tragic act,” it said, quoting experts.

WHAT IN THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?

So, Barack Obama will be staging his own New York production of Chicago, with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as Roxy Hart ("You had it coming, you had it coming, you only have yourselves to blame...." ). We will be treated to months upon months of front page headlines giving a platform to this lunatic war criminal. The courthouses and City office buildings in lower Manhattan (City Hall, the state courts, the immigration offices, the Court of International Trade, the US Attorney's Office, the DA's office, and the main city office building that does marriage licenses and the like are all within about a two-block radius of the federal courthouses and the Metropolitan Correctional Center) will be snarled with massive security, as if lower Manhattan needs more traffic and more armed men. We'll have to have pretrial hearings on the inevitable countless motions about how KSM was apprehended and the evidence against him collected, undoubtedly to the detriment of vital sources of intelligence, like when we lost the ability to track Osama bin Laden by cellphone after our tracing of his calls was revealed by a prosecution under the DOJ Criminal Division then headed by...Eric Holder. And that's even before he starts in on the sob stories about being waterboarded. I'm not seriously concerned that KSM stands any chance of being acquitted, but a hung jury? It only takes one person with extreme political or religious views, one juror who just can't abide the death penalty (even assuming Obama's DOJ pursues it). Just imagine the controversy, if there are Muslims in the jury pool, over what questions prosecutors are permitted to ask them and whether they can be challenged. And of course, it sends the message to our enemies that there's nothing you can do to us that will get you sent through a process rougher than the one we used on Michael Vick or Martha Stewart.

I know I have spoken and written many rough things about Obama, but as Michael Moore would say, most New Yorkers voted for the man - why is he doing this to us?

It's impossible, really, to caricature this White House; even Josiah Bartlett didn't run through this many liberal stereotypes in his first season. Obama needs new writers. Blow up the World Trade Center and kill 3,000 Americans? Jail! Don't buy health insurance? Jail! Win the Nobel Prize for doing jack squat. Travel to Copenhagen to beg and grovel unsuccessfully for the Olympics, and pledge to go visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but blow off traveling to Berlin to commemorate the victory of freedom over Communism (then give a tepid speech on the subject that refuses to acknowledge Ronald Reagan). Commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland by unilaterally abandoning missile defense installations in Poland. Insult and disdain one faithful ally after another - Britain, India, Israel, Poland, Colombia, you name it - and cozy up to our enemies, with nothing to show for it - nothing to show for anything he's done in foreign affairs. All but ignore democratic protests in Iran while supporting an illegal effort by Honduras' president to stay on beyond the end of his term. Suddenly complain about corruption and electoral fraud in Afghanistan, while seeking the favor of Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadenijad and Vladimir Putin - heck, Obama endorsed half a dozen people in Chicago more corrupt than Hamid Karzai. On and on and on we go, with President Apology constantly straining to run down his country's record and talk up the propagandized view of history of its enemies. He's taken more time to "evaluate" General McChrystal's recommendations about Afghan policy than it took George W. Bush to invade Afghanistan and capture Kabul after September 11. It would be funny if it wasn't tragically stupid and bound to get people killed. There is no mistake of our past that Obama is unwilling to remake.

If there's an upside to all this, after months of watching KSM up close, even liberal New Yorkers may be ready to give Dick Cheney a medal.